Do animals have a soul?

[alannanana]

I was raised Catholic and remember the other kids posing the same question in light of having a pet die. Our teachers always said that no, animals don't have souls and will not go to heaven because Jesus did not die for them.

Any who, I always liked what CS Lewis said: "You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." In my hippie-dippie, marijuana-induced philosophy: yes, we all have a soul. I consider the concept of soul to have the likeness of an identity. Animals alike, humans alike. Throw in some zen mindset about reincarnation, blah blah blah. Our little furry friends are breathing manifestations of karma. (/bong hit.) Of course, I'm biased, because my kitty Mac is laying on my forearm as I write this.

[Sheepy]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

i see it as the proof that men dont have anything and all we have is just a pretentious re-wording of animal behaviour.

Definitely its in th wording. Souls as defined by the church would be a gift from God that the animals don't process. Along the same lines the church also says what separates us from the animals is free will. As far as I understand it intelligence doesn't play that much apart of it; although it could easily be assumed that animals are "dumb as balls" because they don't have these things.

And then as far as the soul thing goes, I think it comes down to individuality and personalitiy and self-awareness, if an animal shows that, it can be as dumb as balls, but I'd say it has a "soul" in the way I can make a "soul" a worthwhile term.

What I'm getting from this is that a soul instead should be considered the ability of self-awareness and along those same lines, individuality. Which does create a split between different animals whether they can express these things (but even then how could we tell sometimes). With this informal definition it seems like a soul is an evolved trait, but not a necessary trait. Humans possessing this trait just develop a superiority complex and "reason" that because we've thrived therefore we are the only beings with souls.

I can't tell whether this is a good contribution to the discussion or just me rambling but take it as you will. I'm loving reading this.



edit: Oh and I was only skimming the article earlier, but it doesn't seem to change since the heads of the church made the comment about it not happening again. The little piece of cardboard is sacred nonetheless, and using it as a doggy treat (because I can only assume the dog walked up there because he saw that the pastor was giving out food) is frowned upon.

[marina]

I had a spiritual awakening early in my teens where I came to believe that every element of every atom was charged with divine energy, and that there was no God as monotheists believe, but an overwhelming tendency towards life inside even the most barren environments.

So, my answer is that yes, dogs have souls. But so do desks, and rocks and fingernail clippings. I guess I'm an outlier.

The way I see it, if you want to feed your jesus cracker to the dog, do it. And if you think that's an abomination, then don't do it. Religious people are always such hard-ons about what other people think in their own heads and do in their own houses. I understand being nosy and bossy is a tenant of both christianity and islam, but give it a rest!

[DudeEMETIB]

Originally Posted by Sheepy

What I'm getting from this is that a soul instead should be considered the ability of self-awareness and along those same lines, individuality. Which does create a split between different animals whether they can express these things (but even then how could we tell sometimes). With this informal definition it seems like a soul is an evolved trait, but not a necessary trait. Humans possessing this trait just develop a superiority complex and "reason" that because we've thrived therefore we are the only beings with souls.

Yeah, that's kinda how I see it. Because as I see it, as an immortal thing that continues to exist after we die, there is no soul. As some sort of immaterial "spirit" thing, I'd say there is no soul. As the thing that gives us our personality, our positivity, our negativity, our sense of humor our thoughts and ideas and all that jazz, the thing I think people refer to when they say someone has a "dark soul" or is an "old soul" or "wise soul" that thing, that's a bit less religious and more conceptual, I'd say that use of soul...is wrong because it takes away from the fact that all those things just come from our brains and how we've reacted to different stimuli throughout our lives...but I can agree that that exists (you call it the soul, I call it the human brain) and so we have souls, and maybe some animals do to...we can't at the moment prove it, and I think by and large most animals don't have this idea of a "soul" but they might...it's not impossible.

When someone says that something "pierces through their soul" aren't they basically saying it eats through their emotions, it gives that piercing gut feeling because something is just soo ____ (the blank can be filled by any great emotion being provoked by the thing in question)...that "soul" exists ya know, cause it's just emotion, a state of mind/experience, but it's not an actual "thing" it's just a concept.

This thread is cool, and I like reading everyone's opinion on this.

[alannanana]

Originally Posted by marina

I had a spiritual awakening early in my teens where I came to believe that every element of every atom was charged with divine energy, and that there was no God as monotheists believe, but an overwhelming tendency towards life inside even the most barren environments.

Well put. My personal philosophy was heavily inspired from this quote after discovering it one night, handwritten and hidden in a ceramic jar:

The most revolutionary consciousness is to be found among the most ruthlessly exploited classes: animals, trees, water, air, grasses.

- Gary Snyder

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by marina

The way I see it, if you want to feed your jesus cracker to the dog, do it. And if you think that's an abomination, then don't do it. Religious people are always such hard-ons about what other people think in their own heads and do in their own houses. I understand being nosy and bossy is a tenant of both christianity and islam, but give it a rest!

yeah, well i think the contrast here is between people who think it's ok and people who think it isnt. personally i wouldnt care if someone took a dump on the actual dead body of christ.

i just think that between the two pareties, as a simple analysis of attitudes, the pro animal people are (as they often are) the most disrespectful. if the silly retarded ritual that all those people have requires you to keep fido out of it, why do you HAVE to insist or pull the fnatic-crad (as i heard some do).

I find obsessive dog lovers even creepier than religious people. and the argument "nezt thing is gays and blacks" just makes it even more disturbing.

[marina]

Originally Posted by alannanana

The most revolutionary consciousness is to be found among the most ruthlessly exploited classes: animals, trees, water, air, grasses.

- Gary Snyder

That's pretty cool.

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by alannanana

Well put. My personal philosophy was heavily inspired from this quote after discovering it one night, handwritten and hidden in a ceramic jar:

The most revolutionary consciousness is to be found among the most ruthlessly exploited classes: animals, trees, water, air, grasses.

- Gary Snyder

i had a phase where i found that type of spirituyal belief enlightening. personal experience made me become a completely non-spiritual person but i still see the process behind that.

still, i am not in favour of being anti-religious to the point you disrespect other people's ritual needs. not all christians are bible thumping monsters (well most of em are but...). i know a few people, especially the ones that had harsh traumas or close deaths in their life, that actually use religious faith as a positive plus. and i respect that.

(not disagreeing with you alana, just trying to sort out my thoughts)

[marina]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

i just think that between the two pareties, as a simple analysis of attitudes, the pro animal people are (as they often are) the most disrespectful. if the silly retarded ritual that all those people have requires you to keep fido out of it, why do you HAVE to insist or pull the fnatic-crad (as i heard some do).

From reading the article, it sounded like the dog's owner had basically nothing to do with it. The reverend invited dog and owner in, made a one-off action in feeding communion to the dog, and some jerk complained to his boss and quit the church altogether. Sounds like the churchy is the one with a stick up his ass in this scenario. Having said that, crazy church people and crazy pet people could power the universe with their crazy. Neither is necessarily more horrible than the other.

[Medium Brumski]

Jesus Christ, if you make up your own definition for what a soul is, then of course you could say anything/everything has a soul. Hell, even Junk.